Author: Navdeep K. Singh

Navdeep K. Singh

Navdeep has a wide array of experience in general business and commercial litigation, including class actions and complex, multi-party litigation across multiple jurisdictions. He is well-versed in litigation involving a number of consumer protection laws, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), FTC regulations and unfair trade practices acts. Navdeep has also previously represented pharmaceutical and insurance companies in mass tort litigation nationwide, and has also defended some of the nation’s largest commercial banks and financial institutions in state and federal courts across the country.

View Full Bio on Dorsey

TCPA Roundup: A Week of Blockbuster News from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, the FCC, and a Few District Courts

If you follow daily TCPA news like we do, your head is probably spinning from this week’s developments. We normally digest TCPA developments for our readers in a monthly e-newsletter. (If you’d like to join this list, please drop us a line.) November has delivered some blockbuster news, however, and we decided to highlight some of the notable developments in this mid-month TCPA Roundup. SCOTUS...

Circuit Split Pronounced by District Court’s Application of Statutory Definition of an ATDS

While recent TCPA coverage has focused on the Ninth Circuit’s landmark ruling in Marks v. Crunch, a subsequent ruling from a New Jersey District Court serves has a reminder that (thankfully) the Ninth Circuit remains an “ATDS” definition outlier. For more on Marks, please see Dorsey’s coverage here and Dorsey partner Scott Goldsmith’s interview with Law360 here. To recap, the TCPA prevents calls to cell phones...

Ninth Circuit Rules an ATDS Need Only Have the Capacity to “Store Numbers to Be Called” and Dial “Automatically”

In Marks v. Crunch San Diego, No. 14-56834, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26883 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2018), a three judge panel found “the term ‘automatic telephone dialing system’ means equipment which has the capacity (1) to store numbers to be called, or (2) to produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator-and to dial such numbers automatically (even if the...

Callers Beware: Direct Drop Voicemails Fall Within the Purview of TCPA Liability Says District Court

Is a direct drop voicemail a “call” under the TCPA, as compared to a text message, which we know does constitute a call?  While the FCC has yet to weigh in, in the first judicial opinion on the subject, a federal court in the Western District of Michigan found they were in Saunders v. Dyck O’Neal, 17-cv-335, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121076 (W.D. Mich. July 16, 2018).

Congress Considers So-Called ROBOCOP Bills

While the D.C. Circuit and the FCC have been in the limelight over the past few years for the regulation of automated calls, Capitol Hill is now abuzz with its own efforts to answer the clarion call of consumer complaints over the issue. Democrats in both the Senate and the House have decided to throw their hats in the ring by introducing legislation seeking to enhance protections for consumers besieged by the purported ongoing epidemic of “robocalls.”

ACA International v. FCC Aftermath: 28 Days Later

In ACA Int’l v. FCC, No. 15-211, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6535 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 16, 2018) the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the FCC’s “expansive” interpretation of what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. For an overview of key takeaways from the ruling, please see...